• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Breitbart MUST be destroyed.

Ziggurat said:
Uh, no, that doesn't make it rational. That just means you don't understand the situation. And that's precisely the circumstances under which you are most likely to make irrational assumptions.
Click to expand...

Nice idea in a lab, but in the real world it is guaranteed that absolutely no one understands everything. Understanding what's on the mind of 100 million voters? There is no one who has anything more than an approximate understanding of that.

Ziggurat said:
Because most people haven't responded in this manner. Plus, even more importantly, the state hasn't responded in this manner. Trump cannot ultimately do what he wants to do. Congress isn't really with him (and won't be even if it stays Republican), his base isn't influential with the rest of the populace (what happens in the urban centers affects the rest of the country, but not much the other way around), and the bureaucracy of government is actively hostile to him. Government employees are going to try to thwart him even on the normal stuff. A rational examination of the issue shows that, above all, Trump is likely to be an ineffective president.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get that and I hope so. It looks that way now. You have no fear of the situation changing for the worse? That never happens?

Ziggurat said:
But she wasn't. That's the point. In the primaries, she was helping him.
Click to expand...

That's still stupid. Even if I were to accept the claim that she wanted him to win it's still not being done with intent to help him or the Republican party.

Have you read the memo cited by your article? I know the article agrees with your interpretation but do you realize the memo doesn't really say that?

Do you also agree with that article's assertion that Hillary essentially controls the Republican party (or at least did control them for some period of time) through clever manipulation?

The memo simply states that the Hillary campaign should tell the truth about the Republican base.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Not a rational fear? Why? Simply because he isn't arguing for it now? He's inflaming his base. How do I know where it will stop? It's a rational fear when I already know he's inflamed a racist base larger than I thought possible. As I pointed out I don't consider those things to be guarantees, but I consider them worth consideration and worth preventing. In the face of evidence that the population has responded to racist demagogue more than I would have thought possible, how is it not rational to fear that I might be even more wrong than I suspected?

And you were claiming that Hillary, working against Trump, is somehow equivalent to Bannon/Breitbart working for Trump. Get back to the rationality of that please.
Click to expand...

I have to reluctantly agree. There's still a very long step from Trump's utterly stupid and incendiary rhetoric to concentration camps.

Don't get me wrong: Trump is obviously a dangerous candidate. Even if he loses, he inflames the morons who believe that the election has been stolen from them, and this is a bad and dangerous thing.

But, no, I don't think that concentration camps are a reasonable fear if he wins.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
If you consider Trump's personality, things could get very ugly if all of this plans are thwarted by Congress: he might do some serious off-the-reservation executive orders, just to prove to himself and the world that he is in charge of something...
Click to expand...

Being the vindictive bastard that he is, I shudder to think what he would do to those who slight him when he has more than Twitter and lawyers at his disposal.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Yeah, I get that and I hope so. It looks that way now. You have no fear of the situation changing for the worse? That never happens?
Click to expand...

There's a rather yawning chasm between things being worse than they are now (which I expect regardless of who wins) and actual concentration camps.

That's still stupid. Even if I were to accept the claim that she wanted him to win it's still not being done with intent to help him or the Republican party.
Click to expand...

And drunk drivers don't mean to crash. Yet we still fault them for driving drunk. In fact, we fault them for driving drunk even if they don't crash. Why?

The memo simply states that the Hillary campaign should tell the truth about the Republican base.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no. It says more than that.
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
ETA: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...encouraged-the-media-to-take-trump-seriously/
Click to expand...

That article makes an incredibly specious argument towards the end:

According to a study by Media Research Center, the media divided their coverage of the Democratic candidates roughly in accordance with their performance in the race, spending approximately 58% of the time they dedicated to Democrats on covering Hillary Clinton, versus 42% on covering Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Clinton ultimately received 57% of the Democratic primary popular vote, compared to 43% for Bernie Sanders. However, on the Republican side, the media spent 60% of their time between January 1, 2016 and April 30, 2016 covering Donald Trump, in spite of the fact that Trump had only received 35% of the Republican popular vote at that time.
Click to expand...
That leaves out some incredibly important facts: The Democratic Primary had only two people in it (see ETA), so 57 to 43 is darn close. On the other hand, Trump's 35% was obtained against a very large (up to 16 at one point).

Here are stats for February: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repub...rimaries,_2016#February_2016:_Early_primaries

Trump had fully 32% of the vote in a field of 12. That's 4 times what an even race would lead to. He had fully 50% more than either of the two people in 2nd and 3rd place. That's makes him the clear leader and then it's easy to understand why he was getting coverage similar to Clinton's. He was obviously the most likely to be Clinton's opponent.

ETA: I just noticed that one Democrat, O'Malley, actually made it to the primary season. He did really poorly in Iowa and dropped out.
 
Last edited:
RecoveringYuppy said:
That article makes an incredibly specious argument towards the end:.
Click to expand...


Oh, I didn't mean to present it as a wholly trustworthy article. I just did a quick Google search for "clinton 'pied piper'" and grabbed one that seemed to at least cover the thing I was talking about.

Thank you for dealing with that, though.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Oh, I didn't mean to present it as a wholly trustworthy article. I just did a quick Google search for "clinton 'pied piper'" and grabbed one that seemed to at least cover the thing I was talking about.

Thank you for dealing with that, though.
Click to expand...

You're welcome, and sorry if I implied you supported that part of the article. I didn't think you meant that, and thought you were just answering the question asked earlier.
 
Earthborn said:
The "leaked email" the article uses as a source is just a random PDF on Twitter. It would be more believable if it was an actual link to Wikileaks. Of course, that would be impossible, as the memo does not appear to exist on Wikileaks.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that it's a fake memo?

It wouldn't surprise me, but I would like to see evidence.
 
acbytesla said:
Please, tell me what is so appealing about a media that ignores the facts and only tells you what you want to hear.
Click to expand...

You already have them ignoring facts and telling what you want to hear, so much so that they are coordinating with the DNC and hillary campaign. I'm sure you haven't heard of wikileaks?
 
Argumemnon said:
Amazing. You're so dead-set against Hillary that you're setting yourself up to blame Trump on her?

Is there any evil she's not responsible for?
Click to expand...

It's been analyzed earlier on in the primary process that a Trump nomination was percieved as a win for Hillary. That's been a mentality held by people on this forum. One doesnt need to think Clinton is a lying scumbag to see how the idea could still gain traction. Your criticism in my opinion is lacking...

It was anticipated previously that had it been any other nominee... Clinton would have had an uphill climb... i fail to see why this got to be such a terrible thing to say
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Concentration camps? Seriously? Yeah, that's not a rational fear. And I can't reason you out of it, because you weren't reasoned into it.
Click to expand...


Interesting that this thread got bumped.

I have to wonder if Ziggurat still thinks this wasn't a rational fear.
 
To be fair we've successfully move the discussion from

"There won't be any concentration camps!" to "Those technically aren't concentration camps!"

which is about par for the course for internet discussions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom